Kindness Vs. Intelligence

Post Reply New Topic

1. You clearly don't know what an archetype is as there is no references to archetypes here.
2. You blatantly ignored the part were.
3. Please stop commenting on my stuff because you don't actually contribute anything, you just try to show off while missing the actual point.

Hitler was actually a pretty kind man, the problem is his radical ideas. So what I'm actually referring to is too basically average and equal people, the difference is one is also noticeably intelligent, and the other is noticeably. Which is going to actually bring about more good for you/society in the way they act?

I mean they are stupid. Their "street smarts" are actually counter-effective for dealing with people like me, and they are unable to adapt, so it contributes to nothing for benefiting interpersonal relationships and reflects a lack of liquid intelligence. I'm not talking about academic smarts, (though they aren't that good at that either), I'm talking about general ability and especially interpersonal stuff as from context it was clear I was talking about applying intelligence for pro-social purposes. I actually have much better social skills than most people on the spectrum, even some people off the spectrum, most my problems actually come from anxiety rather than autism stuff.

But the fact you need to be amiable and polite in order to survive means it's the intelligent thing to do rather than the kind.

No, I definitely do not mean likability. That is much more a pragmatic trait for benifiting oneself rather than for benefiting others. By kindness I don't mean acting kind, I mean inherently being kind. Whether it benefits you or not, you act kindly. I'm not talking about sociability, I'm talking about being pro-social.

Neither one is needed for being elected as the president of the most powerful country in the world, that's for sure. (Sorry; it's a little outside the topic but I had to say it.)

Well, the president-elect doesn't have the do anything pro-social whatsoever.

Obviously not standard enough is someone has to ask.

Not every layman knows psychology terms.

You should rid yourself of that assumption. It's one I used to hold, until it ran up against the reality of the World. And it was damaging to me that I held that assumption when I met those people. Please don't make the naive mistakes I did.

I'm extremely surprised you've managed to get up to 46 years old without having that illusion shattered.

Hitler was actually a pretty kind man, the problem is his radical ideas.

This may be the most (sorry I have to say it) ignorant things I've read on this forum. Perhaps you're talking about his kindness to Jews and other minorities??? Or anyone else that got in his way???
Shame on you.

So what I'm actually referring to is too basically average and equal people, the difference is one is also noticeably intelligent, and the other is noticeably (did you mean to say "kind?"). Which is going to actually bring about more good for you/society in the way they act?

If the "average and equal" (except for intelligence) people are equally kind then the intelligent person will be better able to create a welcoming environment.

But people are never "equal" so this makes no sense.

But it seems obvious that an intelligent person (intelligence directed "inward"), if not kind, will fail your test.

While a less intelligent person, who is kindly (with kindness directed "outward"), will do better.

You could have just used google.



You seem to be rather ignorant about Hitler the person, confusing him with Hitler the politician. In his personal life Hitler was a pretty nice guy. People act differently in the political arena because you're more disconnected from the people they were dealing with. Also, they did see what they were doing to the jews as an act of kindness, because they were transforming them into protective members of society by putting them in labor camps (not really, but that's what they convinced themselves) and then later that by killing the jews they were doing them a favor, as well as a favor to society. You need to understand the mindset of the eugenics movement. Yes, it's horrible, but it's not because they weren't "kind". It could equally be argued that it was a fault of intelligence rather than kindness for concluding that such action was kind.

Also, I don't quite understand what you're getting at. I'm not talking about a group of homogeneous kind or intelligent people, but a single individual who is either kind or intelligent.



YOU don't know ME at all. I know me, or the situation I am in, but I do, and I can say you're COMPLETELY off base. Off course my social skills aren't perfect, but they are MUCH better than you are assuming they are. I perfectly aware I'm doing somethings which are socially "wrong", but that's because of anxiety, not because of a lack of knowledge of what I should do (and yes, I do try to figure out how to get along with them, you don't understand the personal problems that are going on here at all), and the people simply don't know how to deal with anxious introverts. I've dealt with plenty of other people who do. My social skills are MUCH better than the typical aspie, and I wouldn't make any of the faux passes you listed. If you want some actual examples of their unintentionally anti-social behavior, there is misreading body language and tone, being loud and obnoxious, not respecting personal spaces, moving people's things around without communicating with them, touching without asking permission ect. And yes, I have talked about more than just annoying behavior when I get the chance, but that's hard when you have a serious anxiety problem. Anyway, in the context of living with a roomate, doing what is for the benefit of the roomate is what defines pro-social behavior, larger society doesn't matter. But the same question can be applied to either context.

Okay, maybe a mathematical model well makes things more clear.

So there is a person and then there is society. The person has to make a selection from a series of choices. Each choice has an outcome which has an effect on the person and on society, which is represented with a number for each, the higher number being the better outcome for society or the individual. So each choice is basically linked with an ordered pair representing the outcome, but exactly what the outcome is is unknown. The most pro-social outcome is whichever results in the highest outcome for society. If someone is more intelligent, they are better at figuring out what exactly the outcome of decision will be. If someone is more kind, they are more willing to chose an outcome that they think benefits society over one that benefits them. Now, which will lead to the more pro-social outcomes depends on the specific details of the model and the situation. We can simplify this by reducing it down to two choices. In that case there are two possibilities: either the personal outcome for the choice with the greater outcome for society is greater or equal to the other option, or it's less. In the former case, intelligence would be more important, in the latter, kindness.

Of course, reality is much more complicated than that model. One major complication is the intelligence doesn't just make it easier to access outcomes, but also to find more potential outcomes. Society is also designed to reward pro-social behavior. So it seems like their is a bias towards intelligence in that respect. But I'm not entirely convinced, and there is more complications.

I think that your model is reasonable, and I think you're side-stepping the edge cases that were some of my concerns.

I think the returns on intelligence are actually very high in that regard. So, one thing I've found personally is that in order to be understood and to understand others, I do spend a lot of time trying to think through what is going on when I communicate and that this pays off for me quite a bit.(I have over a decade's experience obsessively arguing with strangers on the internet. It's strangely really good training if you try to let it be such. A lot of things can be good training if you focus strongly on doing well and imagine effectively how this all works.) Because pro-social outcomes reward me, I think I am very inclined towards pro-social outcomes following from all of this. I don't regard myself as a kind person though, and left to my own emotions I am very bitter, angry, and vicious.

This conundrum has bugged me in the past though, as I've been aware that the big reason why I can get sympathy while others get less of it is because of my intelligence. I'm even aware that my intelligence(a non moral characteristic) feeds very much into me being much more socially rewarded than many people who may be significantly kinder than I am. In fact, I even get very good pro-social opportunities that aren't open to other people, as I can be trusted for discernment, guidance, leadership, mediation, execution of important tasks, and can even do mean things at lower costs. (Am I really considered a bad person for being a jerk to the person everybody wants to go away? How about if I am a jerk in a way that comes off as hilarious?)

The truly intelligent realize that what affects others, affects them. Being kind can lead you astray if you cannot read people or even are not totally honest with yourself. I was listening to a program on UK radio recently, which stated that in Holland prisons were closing down because of their treating the prisoners with trust and giving them responsibility. Norway has a similar jail where this is going on as I read a few years back in The Glasgow Herald. Britain is going through a jail crisis because the government isn't closing prisons but dismissing loads of prison officers. I have no experience of American jails but I understand from another newspaper story by a Briton imprisoned there, that it is chaotic and violent. If we treat others as human, they respond, so kindness helps rehabilitate prisoners

Thank you for your kind words, but you see there are different definitions to the word "ignorant." There is, of course, the definition you prefer: Reading and hearing statements of others (which will make you smart). You seem to have done a fair amount of this.

But then there is another definition that understands there are many people writing down facts that may not be true (although accepted by many), but which believes a close scrutiny of "presented facts" may lead to something not called "propaganda" but instead are judged to be "truthful".

Your belief of Nazi lies shows us which camp you belong in. You believe things written down in favor of Hitler being a kind person...but my judgment comes from something more direct: Observing peoples actions and not necessarily believing what others tell you to believe. The evidence still exists; those images of stacked starved bodies speak with more than "a thousand words."

And although the evidence still exists time has blurred the reality for many of our later generations. And many ignorant people, such as yourself, are more than willing to drink the poison..in fact they would have others drink it as well...just more grist for the propaganda mill.

When I asked my Mother about our German relatives she told me they were all Nazis and I didn't understand why we couldn't communicate with them. But it was probably a wise decision on my Mother's part because, in fact, most of the population was interested in killing Jews (the night of broken glass comes to mind) after allowing themselves to be whipped into a political fervor by Trump (oops I meant Hitler).

The fact that thousands of wonderful things were written about Hitler and attested to by more Nazis does not surprise me.....but the fact that supposedly intelligent people could still be believing these lies does. Maybe they're (you're) just not wise enough to see through the obvious lies?

Anyone can just study those terrible photos for a short while and see there was no "kindness" (now you've made the word somewhat disgusting) involved in any German actions...despite the lies that would try to make otherwise intelligent people think differently.

And you also say: Also, I don't quite understand what you're getting at. I'm not talking about a group of homogeneous kind or intelligent people, but a single individual who is either kind or intelligent.

I'm not surprised you don't understand. If when posing a question you are unable to define the limits of your query then confusion arises. I told you about this earlier but you didn't understand what I was saying, obviously. Now you say "I don't understand..". Perhaps just reread what I wrote earlier a few times?

Your exact words were: "...So what I'm actually referring to is too basically average and equal people, the difference is one is also noticeably intelligent, and the other is noticeably (kind?)"

How the HELL can you have "average and equal people" when in the next breath you say one must be more intelligent than the other while the other must be much more kind. So YOU set up the parameters of two different people and explain their differences, but then claim they are somehow "equal" and "average?" This makes no sense at all. And so as the discussion progresses you have to keep adding modifiers to explain what you hold in your mind.

People are all different.